Brophy Doubles Down On The Classy

Colorado progressives are demanding an apology from Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy for comments he made on Twitter Saturday and to FOX31 Denver Monday echoing Rush Limbaugh’s controversial remarks about a woman’s right to access birth control…

When asked about the comments by FOX31 Denver on Monday, Brophy didn’t apologize and accused Democrats of trying to gin up more controversy over contraception to distract the public from other issues like the economy.

“I just don’t think I should have to pay for somebody else’s birth control,” Brophy told FOX31 Denver. “This has become now a national effort to try and distract Americans from the failed economic policies of the Obama administration.”

Colorado Democrats have indeed seized on Brophy’s comments, as they did Limbaugh’s.

“The debate that is taking place is deeply offensive to Colorado’s women and a slap in the face,” said state Rep. Crisanta Duran, D-Denver, on Monday…

On the one hand, you can acknowledge the obvious: Sen. Greg Brophy, Republican from Wray, midway through his second term in the Senate and representing some of the reddest of red prairie this side of Nebraska (right next door), is not going to apologize to anybody–it’s just not how he rolls. Brophy has nothing to lose personally by defending Rush Limbaugh, or standing by his own fairly crass disparagement of Limbaugh’s law student target of scorn Sandra Fluke. However justified, there is a pushback underway on Limbaugh’s behalf from lots of conservative Republicans. A not-insubstantial percentage of conservative Republicans will adore Sen. Brophy for “standing up,” and set right to gumming this “distraction” to death with him.

It works like this: for every Rush Limbaugh, you have a thousand Brophy-style Limbaugh defenders. For every Greg Brophy, let’s say ten thousand Joe Six Pack Republicans hear it on talk radio and start talking “recreational birth control” too. That’s ten million Republican men running around telling everyone who will listen that Rush Limbaugh is a hero and they, too, don’t want to buy some “slut’s” (they’ll choose Limbaugh’s verbiage of course) birth control.

Well no, now that you mention it, they didn’t ask any women what they’d think. No doubt those ten million Joe Six Packs will hear from the women they spread “the message” to though, won’t they? Do you see where we’re going with this? For every one of the millions of Joe Six Packs out there defending Limbaugh, how many women are they each totally horrifying?

Democrats should try really hard to keep a straight face as long as possible, being one of the greatest political gifts since…well, at least since the aspirin between the knees thing.

Rep. Daniel Singer (D-11) mentioned advocating for school based reproductive health care, and a colleague noting that his school clinic fixed his recreational lacrosse injury incurred as the result of risky behavior taken in full knowledge of the risk.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12-29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active-which nearly everyone eventually will.”

Indeed, while the likelihood that Americans will have sex before marriage has remained virtually unchanged since the 1950s, people now wait longer to get married, so they are sexually active and unmarried for much longer than in the past. During this period, Dr. Finer concludes, young adults have an especially great need for accurate information about how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. [Ari’s emphasis throughout.]

How many people have to take more insulin because they won’t eat healthier to manage their Type-2 Diabetes? We are paying for their junk food!

What about lung cancer treatment for smokers or liver cancer treatment for alcoholics? Why are we paying for people to smoke and drink themselves into oblivion? By letting our insurance companies pay for these treatments we are encouraging this behavior!

Speaking of “recreation”, let’s have a choice to have insurance plans that don’t cover sports injuries. 2 years ago I broke my leg playing hockey and it cost over $50k to fix. My insurance (and secondary insurance) covered all of it. That was unfair that other members had to pay for my recreation. I’ll be most of them don’t even like hockey.

How many other ridiculous examples can you think of that mirrors Brophy’s argument?

And yes, for every other goober six pack that exposes a total ignorance of human health issues with comments like Brophy’s and Limbaugh’s, there’s (in most cases) a woman in the goober’s life rightfully prepared to embarrass him for being an ignorant, uninformed dumbass and a male counterpart that knows what time it is.

We may be at a point that a good old fashioned bit of American Entrepreneurism can come in to play.

Most of the time, a lady in a relationship with anybody this stupid’s probably ready to move up.

Time for a business venture combination of divorce law firm that, upon completing the legal proceedings, refers into a dating service whose clients are, just coincidentally, singles that know what time it is (That would be Democrats).

So as not to exclude any potential intelligent male clients from other political parties, a video’d exam on human health and biology would would weed out the conservative talk radio/TV devotees.

The lady could base her choice on how much the testee squirms and stammers, especially when the sex ed part exposes him as an idiot.

“This is all part and parcel of a master campaign strategy by the left to distract people from their (Democrats’) failed economic policies,” Brophy said.

From tpntbn

Wait a second. If you think this is a “master campaign strategy”, then Rush Limbaugh must be a deep cover operative for the worldwide crypto muslim socialist agenda. Otherwise how could explain that the things Rush says are part of a “master campaign strategy.” Wait hold on…since you are also doubling down on Rush’s words that are part of the “master campaign strategy” that was must mean…. Sorry I mentioned anything comrade.

The next time you choose to make outrageously offensive statements about women and their rights to healthcare, you might not want to do it on the day before Pro-Choice Lobby Day. Just saying. Now run along, there’s a gathering crowd outside your office door…

In today’s world of Government “health care” this blog seems to argue frequently that pregnancy must be avoided because the cost is too high – therefore, it is right to mandate that regligious institutions cover contraception (Religious Liberty Not Withstanding). Further, the arguement goes, we can force hospitals to provide abortions (even Catholic), force insurance companies to provide products, force doctors to perform services. It really isn’t much of a leap to forcing women into sterilization and forced abortions for the undesired.

Your religion and your beliefs is about your relationship with your God and your church.

So keeping that in mind, how does buying an insurance plan that covers birth control infringe on your freedom of religion? How does having a co-worker who takes birth control get in the way of your relationship with your God?

(I also posed this question in the Wednesday Open Thread before I read your comment)

I’m going to create a firestorm here, but the fact is that Catholics don’t believe in a personal relationship with God. You can see that by the lack of Bibles in their churches and the lack of emphasis on reading the Bible on a daily basis. Catholics prefer to have their religion fed to them by their priests and ultimately their pope. OK by me, just not what I believe and so not freedom. So, now, who is really free. Catholics who think the pope in innerant or us protestants who read the Bible for ourselves and decide for our selves what it means. Personally, I’ll take my freedom every day.

PS, the Bible says nothing about birth control. It also says nothing about abortion. Catholic heirarchy made up only of men has made their rules. God says nothing about it, except for those of you who might like to read Genesis 2 where it says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils and he became alive. Or how about Leviticus, where in utero babies are treated as chattel. Catholics might want to read these two passages and wonder whether their pope has got it right.

well over 90% of Catholics using birth control at some point in their lives. I think it’s something like 95%. The men in dresses must work really hard to maintain a level of denial that astronomically high.

If only a tiny minority of your flock finds your stance reasonable enough to act upon, maybe it’s time to enter the 20th (at least) century. With this many ignoring what, for the church, is a go to the mat article of faith, doesn’t the Church become just something for which people have enough fondness and nostalgia to nominally stick with, without letting it interfere with their modern adult lives? Like some old fashioned, ancient aunty to be humored by the nieces and nephews when they visit?

“It’s all a mass conspiracy I tell you to force us to think about gun violence and other yucky stuff that we conservatives are too delicate to acknowledge.

You are infringing on my personal deep faith in the Almighty by making my consider the rights of other individuals. How dare you think that I want to be part of our society and pay my fair share.

I have no problem paying for war though (actually I do but I’ll pass that debt onto the kids and strip resources from the poor. Clever me heh-heh). I love war and the smell of Naplam in the morning. It’s not against my faith heh-heh.”

How’s that war thing going for you? Do you think that people who object to war should have to pay for their share of the defense budget? Are you saying that it’s OK to force people to pay their taxes even if some of it goes to pay for killing but you personally don’t want to contribute to a health insurance program if it means part of your payments help fund womens health care programs. Are you one of the drab self-hating women who are cowed into following your GOP guy around or is there a bulge in your panties and you’re just another lying GOP operative?

“this blog seems to argue” = set up a straw man. No one has argued this.

“pregnancy must be avoided to because the cost is too high” = another straw man. Pregnancy costs are high, but that is why insurers are willing to provide contraceptives are no increased premium expense.

“mandate religious institutions cover contraception” = faulty premise. Insurance companies cover the contraceptives, not the churches. The insurance co., not the employers, have to offer the contraceptives at no cost, which they have agreed to do.

“force hospitals to provide abortions” = an appeal to ignorance. What is proposed is requiring hospitals to disclose that they refuse to provide abortions.

‘force insurance companies to provide products” = incomplete comparison. Health insurance is a highly regulated industry. Most, if not all of the coverage they provide is influenced, if not mandated, by state an federal regulation.

“forced sterilization and abortion” = the final flourish, slippery slope with a large helping of an appeal to fear.

and what we say are a bit different. So let me present this from my angle and see if you disagree with any of it…

A person has a right to privacy between themselves and their medical doctor.

There are an estimated 1.5 million women who depend on birth control pills for medical conditions; additionally, 99% of all women have taken birth control pills at some point in their lives, including 98% of Catholic women.

Following on from (1) and (2), whether a woman is taking birth control pills for a medical condition or for family planning is a private decision between the patient and her medical doctor.

Religions generally enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment, like most of the Amendments, is not absolute – e.g. yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

Religions and religious people who enter into fields of endeavor related to certain public interests – safety and education among them – give up some of the 1st Amendment protection of religion within the scope of those endeavors because the government maintains the public interest in setting certain standards for those practices.

To give one example, the government requires that hospitals adhere to best practices for any types of care that they provide; for religious hospitals, some provisions are made to accommodate their religious mores: e.g. that those who are unwilling or unable to provide emergency abortion care (yes, it is sometimes medically necessary) be able and willing to safely and timely transfer the patient to a facility that will provide that service.

Regarding birth control, the government sets minimum standards for health insurance to ensure that people who think they’ve purchased health insurance are actually covered for a certain set of medically important services. (In other words, so “insured” people aren’t ripped off.) That includes the often medically necessary birth control hormone treatments.

So, if the reason for birth control prescriptions is a private decision between doctor and patient, and medically necessary birth control is required by the government as part of a minimal effective health insurance plan, then it would stand to reason that exactly why a woman is receiving birth control pills is outside of the purview of the employer, religious or no, and that the insurance plan needs to include that coverage.

But, since Liberals are so soft-hearted, the Obama Administration isn’t making religious institutions engaged in public endeavors pay for birth control after all, because the insurance companies are willing to include it in the plan for no extra cost – it saves them money, after all, and money is their bottom line.

2. If it wasn’t for Catholic Doctors, Hospitals and Universities – we wouldn’t have the high standard in health care the US enjoys.

3. What you really mean to say is that when it comes to health care people have a right to privacy between government and the insurance company and the patient. Government and the Doctor and the patient. Government the patient and the hospital. Government and the insurance company and the hospital. Government the Hospital and the Government. Government and the Doctor and the Hospital. And Government plus anyone else with a conscience.

(Logical fallacies: (a) does not address any point of my argument, and (b) poor attempt to devalue oral contraceptives as effective medicine – every medication has side effects.)

And a refutation of the facts of your “point” as a bonus: Contraceptives have mixed results regarding cancer, decreasing ovarian and endometrial cancer, possibly (results are mixed) slightly increasing the risk of breast cancer (while decreasing its severity in women who stopped taking it 10 years ago or more), and affecting other cancer types in mixed ways. (Source: National Cancer Institute)

(Logical fallacies: (a) does not address any point in the discussion, and (b) false assumption that without the Church, health care would fall apart in the U.S.)

While the Catholic Church is certainly a part of the ancient development of hospitals, and (largely through purchase) is currently a major provider of hospital services in the U.S., it is not the sole basis for hospitals in the U.S. (e.g. Ben Franklin and Dr. Thomas Bond, a Quaker, founded the nation’s first public hospital in 1751 and the U.S. Marine Hospital Service was an early government run, mandated insurance hospital program for sailors); nor would the current Catholic hospitals fall in to ruin if the Church exited the business and allowed them to be sold off…

Really? In “abortion pills” do you refer to RU-486/mifepristone or how do you use that term — state what you understand as “abortion pills.” Do you understand how mifepristone works? Do you know that mifepristone has been shown to greatly reduce breast cancer in BRCA1 gene carriers?

If you are also speaking about OC (oral contraceptive) usage do you also know there is substantially powerful data showing OC usage decreases the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers.

Catholics set up a number of early hospitals catering to pilgrims headed to the Holy Land, and they’ve long been involved in running hospitals worldwide. In the U.S., they’ve been on an acquisition binge lately, picking up a number of hospitals in industry consolidation maneuvers; I believe the Catholic Health Association may be the single largest hospital operator.

But in no way are they instrumental in the high health care standards of the country; as I note above, if the Catholic Health Association were to suddenly quit the industry, the hospitals would not close unless the CHA decided to force them closed rather than selling them off.

Your response and refutation of ‘Vanessa’s” 3 point rebuttal is much more reasoned and sympathetic to a discussion.

I have no support or praise for any aspect of the Catholic religion, especially their health services. Perhaps ‘Vanessa’ could read up on the varied abortive procedures that have been conducted under the guise of Catholic health in 3rd world countries or upon minority converts — until then she should refrain from the false praise or even better try not to school others willing to know facts.

absolute abhorrence of government mandates is her total amnesia about the government mandated invasive medical procedure that the nanny state of Virginia is now requiring. Talk about about a clueless bitch who is only outraged about government mandates that actually benefit people and totally ignores the totally ridiculous government mandated political coercion that will come between a doctor and their patient and mandate medical procedures that have no medical benefit and drive up health care costs. This stinking pile of shit is all for that government meaningless mandate because everyone knows that a women who decides to terminate an unwanted pregnancy will find a way. It is an invasive and destructive intrusion on the rights of our citizens and dear old “Vanessa” doesn’t say a word about the “evils” of that government mandate. What a traitor to “her” gender.

You would think that defending Limbaugh’s misogyny would be in the A-BOT’s sweet spot.

Instead we get the disingenuous “Vanessa” to parrot Republican talking points about the United States of Republicans don’t want to pay for womens health care. We get the feminine treatment. It reminds me of the si-fi movie Serenity when Malcolm goes to see the information wizard and his inflatable “wife”. Vanessa could certainly be A-BOT’s alter-gender and an inflatable Republican caricature. I guess some of Romney’s plastic personality is rubbing off on them.

Interesting the A-BOT didn’t stick around and defend Limbaugh. It couldn’t possibly be because he does have a soul is embarrassed that this is what the party of Lincoln has been reduced to?

Requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives is EXACTLY the same as requiring religious institutions to do so.

Requiring hospitals to disclose to people when checking in that, even if it is medically indicated, they will not perform abortions is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT the same as forcing hospitals to perform abortions.

Requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for certain basic products is JUST LIKE forcing people to have abortions.

And there REALLY ISN’T MUCH OF A LEAP between objecting to Rush Limbaugh’s vicious personal attack on a private woman who dared to testify before Congress and forced sterilizations.

Why does it seem they would prefer a married couple of modest means to have 8 children which could easily lead to all of them being on welfare with one lost job, lost insurance coverage and need for one serious surgery instead of using responsible family planning, What’s wrong with family planning aimed at giving the number of children people feel they can afford the best start in life possible and avoiding financial ruin and dependency on tax payers? It’s as though conservatives think sex for romance and pleasure in a committed relationship is sinful and ought to be punished. Not to mention that they continually betray an attitude that it’s slutty for women to enjoy sex or to have it for any reason other than as a dirty act that must be indulged in, preferably with reluctance, in order to produce children.

What’s next? A GOP fight for states’ rights to outlaw anything but the missionary position? An anti-masturbation amendment in the name of all that poor spilled seed? What wrinkle in the space time continuum taking us back to the Victorian era did the rest of us miss?

Or could it just be that the base they’re pandering to views sex with guilt, dread and self loathing? Bet that’s it.

the 99% who have at least a passing familiarity with birth control. Santorum and Romney have the kids to prove they really don’t believe personally in using birth control. How many other Rs have more than the usual number of kids?

While this may feed your red meat constituents and supporters in the Republican Party, an aspirin between the knees won’t help my daughter. You see, almost 4 years ago she was diagnosed with Hodgkins’ lymphoma at age 20. She had two months of aggressive Chemo and 30 consecutive days of radiation. This left her cancer free (thank God!)but also perhaps pre-menopausal, which means she probably can’t have babies the natural way. The doctors recommended that she become pregnant immediately, but that’s a lot to ask from a 21 year-old woman who has no man in sight.

But, the doctors have found that taking birth control pills may give her a chance to conceive when she is ready (if she is ever ready). Fortunately for Obamacare, she can still remain on our insurance plan, something you try to stop all the time. But when she reaches 26, under your plan, she just gets kicked off any plan and becomes uninsurable, unless there is some kind employer who will employ her, even given her medical history (you probably don’t know, but the radiation increases her chances of breast cancer exponentially, especially since my mother died of it).

Now my daughter isn’t married, just not ready. She’s not a baby factory after all. Just so you know, the Bible says nothing about when you have to start having babies, and I seem to remember someone who was in her 90’s when she did.

But, my daughter is in grad school and will get a doctorate in Physical Therapy in May from Duke (I tell you this only because I don’t want you to think she is some dumbass or some kind of slut or prostitute.) I tell you this, because my daughter will also have a debt of about $150,000 when she graduates. This will, necessarily take some time to pay off. And in addition to this, she will be very limited in her job choices, as she will need health insurance and only the larger groups can afford to have her on their plans. So, you have probably forced her into an academic institution, with the most likiely being the CU Med Center. (Never mind the cost of coverning her, because you never consider that sort of stuff.

In conclusion, I hope this situation never happens to you (but it’s only a slight hope and only due to my religious beliefs). All I want to say is shut the hell (not the word I wanted to use) up. You only just got married. You don’t know anything. You are a miserable human being. I hope you go to hell, literally, because you deserve it. Personally, I know that some day, Saint Peter will be letting me into the pearly gates. I hope you get to move a mountain 100 miles a teaspoon at a time.

it’s way too long for a letter to the editor. They’d edit the hell out of it, perhaps not to your liking. You’d have to severely self edit in order to maintain more control of how it would be presented. I’d also check with your daughter first as letter to the editor authors must identify themselves.

And thank goodness for Obama and the Democrats passing the Affordable Care Act. Your daughter’s story is dramatic – and one of thousands that show us that the ACA is the right thing for our citizens, young AND old.